Talk:Charles K. Armstrong

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Charles K. Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230150412/http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/identities/default.htm to http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/identities/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Tyranny of the Weak allegations
Is it really the case that, as the entry now asserts, "Szalontai asserts that many parts of the text closely resemble text in Szalontai's ''Kim Il Sung in the Khrushchev Era"? I thought the problems were all in the source material itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarkHistorian (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, would there be some merit in taking the controversy on Tyranny of the Weak to a separate page? It now eats up about a third of the entire bio. As for the "Controversy over other works" section, tacked on to the Tyranny of the Weak controversy, it is sourced to two essays -- one by Fyodor Tertitsky (allegations which, to my knowledge, the author has never substantiated in terms of demonstrating source fabrications) and the same blog post by B.R. Myers which is already linked to and taken up at other points in the bio entry/Tyranny section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarkHistorian (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons that StarkHistorian gave, I suggest the entire section "Controversy over other works" be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanStudiesFan (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:KoreaStudiesFan, you should not have removed all reference to the plagiarism controversy from this page. I'll be reinstating aspects of it soon. That was longstanding material. The fact is that Armstrong did appear to plagiarise aspects of the work in question and this fact should be given appropriate weight on this page--not scrubbed entirely. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the material with some small changes. Please do not remove any part of it again without discussion. Thanks.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Anotheranothername  You seem to be mistaken. I did not remove all the references to the controversy and have provided justifications for everything that I have changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanStudiesFan (talk • contribs) 03:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * KoreanStudiesFan, I apologize. It was a random IP who deleted the entire section. Anyway, let's keep an eye out for people doing similar things in the future. Sorry again, I was on my phone while looking at the page history. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

StarkHistorian your additions are poorly sourced and some of it is inaccurate. Please see No original research and update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanStudiesFan (talk • contribs) 06:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Always happy to be edited by yourself KoreanStudiesFan, but do you have examples of poor sourcing on my part or attempts to insert original research onto the page in my edits of the last couple of days? I have added multiple footnotes to Armstrong's works and attempted again to augment sections not pertaining to the Tyranny of the Weak case in the interests of a more balanced entry, while also making the entry on that section more chronological and better sourced. I am going to leave the 'Controversy over Other Works' section (which I see has been removed) on this page for others to solve, as Drs. Tertitsky to my knowledge has never published anything resembling a rigorous backing-up of his 2017 Daily NK claims about Armstrong's publications circa 2005 (I believe it's a Cold War Studies article, some of which was folded into Tyranny of the Weak) and not inclined to chase him (Tertitsky, not Armstrong) or other more prolix parties about it. Finally, there may be room for some discussion of what happened in 2018, if anything (or perhaps nothing at all happened and the trench war was at a standstill?), in the Tyranny of the Weak section, that that section does jump from summer 2017 to January 2019. StarkHistorian (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, KoreanStudiesFan, a sincere and unironic thank you for deleting that one sentence I had added at the end of the controversy section sending readers to ye olde Sthele Press, B.R. Myers doesn't need my help in reminding anyone about his Ibsenesque bravery in standing against certain currents and trends while being buoyed up by others, and Myers is cited elsewhere in the entry. StarkHistorian (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, KoreanStudiesFan, a sincere and unironic thank you for deleting that one sentence I had added at the end of the controversy section sending readers to ye olde Sthele Press, B.R. Myers doesn't need my help in reminding anyone about his Ibsenesque bravery in standing against certain currents and trends while being buoyed up by others, and Myers is cited elsewhere in the entry. StarkHistorian (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

StarkHistorian I think you were in the middle of editing when I wrote that comment. At the time, I don't remember seeing any sources about the latest news. Since then you've added the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanStudiesFan (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Also regardless of what happened in 2018, I don't think there are any non-self-published sources that reveal anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanStudiesFan (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Zanhe your summary is not accurate in terms of the timeline of the events (which can easily be seen from the rest of the entry) If you're going to have that summary in the first part of the entry, then you should at least get the facts straight. Otherwise it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanStudiesFan (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead section edits ("raised" vs "uncovered" plagiarism)
Users and  have been going back an forth on whether the plagiarism issues were "raised" or "uncovered". The first argues that "raised" works better in the sequence of events, while the latter argues that "uncovered" is better as it does not whitewash the issue. I would suggest that they are both right in their own way: the issue was first raised, and later confirmed. The problem ultimately is that the lead section needs a bit more fleshing out. The most recent developments as I think they are aware, is that the investigation committee has determined there had been academic misconduct, and that Professor Armstrong is no longer teaching this academic year (taking a sabbatical), and will retire in a year. Food for thought. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only one who found 's edits troublesome, also  raised questions with their use of "excessively euphemistic" language. I originally assumed good faith, but after looking at their edit history, I realized this is a WP:SPA who has never edited any other article in their nine months of existence and all they've ever done was to whitewash Armstrong's misconduct. There's strong evidence to believe the user has undisclosed WP:COI with the subject. -Zanhe (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also pinging who's had a longer history of interaction with KoreanStudiesFan. -Zanhe (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with Al83tito's suggestion about the need to flesh out the lead section and would have no issue with an additional sentence that showed some deference to the sequence of revelations. For the record, I think anyone who looked at a copy of Szalontai's work and Armstrong's work side by side could have easily discovered the truth that there were identical parts and that warranted the charges of plagiarism Szalontai was making, but the news articles (non-opinion) and institutional statements (including the one from AHA that involved the return of the Fairbank award) that came out before the ruling largely avoided stating that outright. That's why I find the word "uncover" problematic here...it suggests (as has not only been pointed out by me) that the specific allegations of plagiarism and source fabrication were officially confirmed at the time of the return of the Fairbank award when in reality, they were officially confirmed later. As I tried to make clear in the edit, the specific reason for the return of the Fairbank award at the time was citation errors.

Perhaps, being relatively new, I need some advice on how to properly address particular parts of an entry that are inaccurate, out of sequence, or not sufficiently sourced. I thought it was sufficient to point out how problematic they are and/or how they violate community standards in the editing description. I got most of my information from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. I also fail to understand how any of what I did constitutes 'whitewashing' when I have been transparent about everything I have edited and have provided reasons for doing so. KoreanStudiesFan (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for laying out your reasoning here. It seems that your concern is that the lead material does not properly address the timeline of publishing-->accusations of plagiarism/fabrication---> eventual return of prize in response to queries-->columbia investigation. I agree that a single sentence covering this material may not be enough in the lead, especially since the furor around "Tyranny of the Weak" represents the bulk of the material in this article. That is to say, in terms of notability, "Tyranny of the Weak" is by far the most notable aspect of this article. So I'd be happy to work with you and others on adding extra material regarding that.
 * Quick question though, can you point me to the part in the BLP guidelines that led you to make this edit to the article? I'm just not altogether convinced that the chronological concerns you laid out above warranted the outright removal of all mention of plagiarism and source fabrication from the lead.
 * Also--"architectural history" in the lead? Which of Armstrong's works covers that? Anotheranothername (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just want to add that the "contentious material should be removed immediately" part of BLP is supposed to address material that is possibly untrue or is slander/libel, not material that provides a succinct but possibly chronologically inaccurate summary of a drawn-out process. --Anotheranothername (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Anotheranothername My reasoning for deleting that sentence originally based on the BLP guidelines not only because of the issue with the chronology but also because of the word "revoked" that was not supported by the sources cited in the entry. It's very contentious (and possibly libelous) to make assumptions regarding "revoked" vs. "voluntarily returned," so unless there is evidence from published sources that suggests otherwise, it's important to show deference to the official statement. I was neutral on whether or not the book controversy should be mentioned in the lead section, so I left it to others to bring up the issue in a way that could be supported by the rest of the entry. Since it was re-inserted with a modification (addressing the "revoked" without the chronology), I made a good-faith effort to correct it further.

My suggested sentence to add (for the sake of fleshing out the lead section) is below in my comment to Zanhe below.

For architectural history, I didn't add that part, but a simple google search came up with this: https://revistes.uab.cat/tdevorado/article/view/v2-n2-jelena  KoreanStudiesFan (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you mind addressing the substance of the point in question that talk raised instead of accusing me of things that are untrue. Do you think adding the sentence like "A Columbia University investigation later determined that he had committed plagiarism." be a complete enough summary? KoreanStudiesFan (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , first, apologies for the slow response. Life is busy. I'll try now to do my best to acknowledge and respond to your replies. Zanhe, you raise good points and I respect that (WP:SPA, WP:COI). You have had a longer interaction with KoreanStudiesFan and I hear you say that you have at first assumed good faith, but later you have felt differently. Since I am newer to this article, I might go through the same process. So far, though, I feel that at least the parts I have noticed, KoreanStudiesFan is trying to add nuance, which can be easily mixed with whitewashing. To the specific point I raised at the beginning of this section, I think that KoreanStudiesFan responds with a very adequate solution. Adding to the lead "A Columbia University investigation later determined that he had committed plagiarism" I think would complement very well the statement that previously issues were "raised". I will go ahead and add that line to the lead paragraph. Thank you.Al83tito (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That looks fine to me. I hate to assume bad faith, but it's hard not to be suspicious when an SPA consistently removes well sourced negative information from the article over nine months. -Zanhe (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to address any specific revisions I made. I believe I have made a good faith effort to follow Wikipedia policy as best as I understand it.

If this is about decorum, I am very sorry for the second revision I made (regarding chronology) on the lead part without discussing it with you first. Your first revision in that section however had information that was problematic in terms of BOLP as I discussed above (in addition to not being well-sourced), and that's why I thought it was necessary to remove the whole sentence (in the first revision) KoreanStudiesFan (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your honesty on this page and contribution to the lead. Honestly, I'd be happy to leave it the way it is now, while noting that "revoked" appears to have been correct (in one sense) terminology regarding the AHA and the return of the prize. Looking at the Columbia report linked in this Retraction Watch post, Armstrong himself seems to have indicated that the AHA were unequivocal in asking him (privately) to return it. (He used the word "revoked" himself according to the report). Anyway... I say we let this article sleep for now until someone comes along and blanks all the bad parts again. chur --Anotheranothername (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)